I'm beginning to come around to the idea that the best thing that could happen now that if one of the parties organised a large demonstration in London (there are some planned), marched them up Whitehall and around Parliament and just asked them to sit down, that might clear a few blocked drains Non-violent and not necessarily long term - just enough to stop a few lines of traffic Worled wonders in the U'S. with the Civil Rights and scrainly set the shit flying at the fan with CND I have always had pictures of those supporting the miners walking through the West End I'd die with a broad grin to see that happen Jim Carroll

"that he cannot rely on his, and Cummings, bullying to bring his own party into line." What do you think the 'law and order' and new prisons are all about ? One of the issues raised by Yellowhammer was the likelihood of civil disorder Of course - it might all be a coincidence - and my jack's a kipper Jim Carroll

"If his attempts to have an election were blocked by his proroguement of Parliament." Surely he is now up his own hole over this one ? If the vote goes against him he has threatened to withdraw the whip from and prevent from standing in future elections, all who voted against him Each constituency where this has happened will have to hold elections to select their new MPs - unless all MPs in future are going to ce chosen by the Prime Minister I'd love to be a fly on those walls Jim Carroll

The rumour is that he will call for an election if the vote goes against him. But as we have remarked, that needs Labour to vote for it. It would have a strange irony if his attempts to have an election were blocked by his proroguement of Parliament.

And yes, I know he said he didn't want an election and the electorate didn't either. If that is not a preparation to say he was forced into it by the antidemocratic people in Parliament I don't know what is.

No election, desptie the afct that Johnson has just made an election speech telling the world how his is going to fight crime and pour money into education He is going to "persuade our friend in the EU to change their minds about the backstop and get them to agree to sell out their members A moron who agrees with hs policies say that the Government must be allowed to govern, ignoring the fact that Johnson is proposing to close down parliament so it can't Just like the barbers cat - all wind and piss - nothing has changed Johnson's speech was accompanied by mass chanting from the thousands in Whitehall ("rentamob" as the Johnsons of British politics regard them) Didn't notice the raised-arm salute, but I'm sure that they're being perfected Jim Carroll

"But if the DUP was also weakened, it might be significant." Position in the Northern counties is obscured by the fact that Governance there has been for over two years The DUP is in decline and the party riven with scandals Corbyn's age is of no relevance if he is capable of leading and if the party is run on the lines that he can me democratically replaced when he becomes unfit for the job It's about time parties were chosen on the basis of their policies and not on the charisma (or otherwise) of who leads them I'd long ceased voting for any of the bastards when Corbyn came along - our young war criminal Blair did it for me If the coup is going to be defeated, it will only be by a combination of efforts by the sensible and democratic members of all parties anyway - I'd back Corbyn before any of the others as caretaker leader and certainly before a new kid on the block Corbyn has had the support of young Labour up to now - pretty well unprecedented for any party - but they have proved they are keeping an eye on how he lives up to their trust - you don't get healthier politics than that Jim

One interesting feature should an election be called is that nobody knows where the Labour Party stands on Brexit.

They voted to leave in the referendum They voted to leave when voting for article 50 They voted to leave in the 2017 General Election Labour has been bleating consistantly for an election. Now when they have the opportunity they back off. Is this because their revolving manifesto has a few fatal flaws? Nothing to do with the idiot McDonnell wanting to sell people's second homes at discounted rates of course.(in Flagrant breach of human rights legislation) He would be torn a new one in the courts before the ink was dry on the paper. But this is the same joker hellbent on nationalising everything. Again in opposition to existing EU legislation. I wonder what other vote winning wheezes he has up his sleeve prior to an election. A party led by a geriatric and a raging lunatic designing policy soundbites to lose an election. Boris's opposition dream team I would say.

The news just keeps getting better and better, now we have a PM with a pair! What an exciting week! Are we finally taking our country (Constitution) back from Brussels?

while many of us are furious at the suggestion that our children should work until 75 , am i right in thinking that jeremy corbyn is about 70....so would be a prime minister at75 if he won an election shortly. sorry, just too old - show a bit of solidarity jez. you've done a great job and i will always support our manifesto- but need to stand down in the national interest. i note it's keir starmer's birthday (57) today - many happy returns.

i don't feel good about this, or the fact that we are almost relying on the emergence of tories with a bit of a conscience and intelligence. but it's hard times in old england

I'm fearing the worst. Though I do wonder what would happen if (a) all the Scottish Tories lost their seats, (b) a considerable number of Tory "rebels" stood as independents and won their seats, as some undoubtedly would, (c) there was significant LibDem resurgence, which I'd also expect. One thing I'm not particularly scared of is Farage and his bunch of eejits. They'll get votes but not seats, and they'll take votes off both big parties.

We'd need a progressive coalition that takes seriously the prospect of brexit not happening at all. Complicated for Labour, but these are times of crisis...

You've gorra larf at all this or you'll end up as psychotic as y.n.w. Wonderful cartoon in the bumwipe press over the weekend showing Johnson and Gove barricaded in number 10 with the queen tied to a chair and crowds outside the window - Johnson is screaming through a megaphone "We want free passage to No-Deal or the old lady gets it"

...Although it transpires that Johnson could make an assurance that any election would take place before October 31. I have a nasty feeling that that would not help Labour at all. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Blair's elephant-trap warning. Unfortunately, Jeremy has made himself a hostage to fortune by repeatedly calling for a general election. I think he'd better start to attach a whole load of conditions to his call.

In the meantime, UK industrial output is falling faster now than at any time in the last seven years...

An interesting snippet on Constitutional Law/convention that impedes the renegade's plans to force legislation through:

Any Bill that has an impact on the Royal Prerogative requires 'Royal Consent' to even be discussed and debated. This has been withheld on numerious occasions and rightly so. Also any Bill that would lead to public expenditure requires, under standing orders, a money resolution which only the Government can move. The second issue is that of Royal Assent. This is the process by which any Bill becomes Law and is usually a formality.

Several things. If Johnson gets an election, it's then in his gift to call it for after October 31. That will mean no-deal. Next, Labour is, in my view, is likely to lose an election, either before or after that date. I hear Tony Blair and I share his fears (I don't share much else with him).

The right thing to happen would be an extension to Article 50 until at least several months after an election, giving the new administration time to carry out its stated manifesto policy on brexit, which could mean trying to strike a deal (away from the current frenetic chaos), or to organise another referendum. That would best serve the interests of the country. This administration hasn't got the slightest interest in that, unfortunately, but they have all the best populist tunes.

The chaos in Westminster it almost palpable Johnson is said to be holding a cabinet meeting (what will be left of them if he goes on the way he is doing) this afternoon on how to deal with Tory rebels (the utter contempt for democracy by calling those who oppose the Prime Minister "Rebels" is the stuff that feeds a dictatorship) Despite the fact that there was a sectarian riot in Glasgow and three sectarian incidents in Belfast over the weekend, the Northern Ireland Secretary's visit has been cancelled, so the pretence of supporting the province seems to have ridden off into the sunset Corbyn is supporting te idea of a general election, which is what all this seems to be about anyway I don't know if Labour can win, but if they can't Britain can forget anything that resembles democracy for some time to come No wonder Johnsong announced a massive spending on law and order and prisn's - he's going to need it Never mid - Mike Pence is visiting Ireland this week - maybe he can nip over to London to give them some tips on 'Special Rendition' U.S. style - never know, might come in handy Jim Carroll

And there's something else. If all this implodes on Johnson he'll call an election which he will almost certainly win. Then he can do whatever he wants. I have a strong feeling that this is the plan. We are living in a world in which brainless populism holds all the cards.

I was listening to a law expert picking his way through the legal implications of these draconian measures - complicated to say the least, which leads us to hope that the final judgement is not in the hands of people with a Bragenda I've all but given up on expecting fair play and common sense from Britain any more - The bizzare Johnson, Gove and Cummins Cirque du Soleil is just about the straw that sends UK democracy to destruction Jim Carroll

Serious, agreed, but there are stronger indications. The suggestion that if the houses both agree legislation the PM may not recommend royal assent is replacing a '1Megaton' constitutional breach - the Government may defy the law - with a '100Megaton' one - the PM has an effective veto on anything the houses agree. That would of course apply to all Prime Ministers and, for example, amendments to legislation the PM did not like.

Over the last couple of days, Government ministers have avoided answering whether they would allow the Queen to approve to any legislation passed by Parliament designed to prevent Brexit on the 31st. Naturally, Remainers have reacted with outrage…

Back in January a Policy Exchange paper by Sir Stephen Laws QC argued that the executive’s role in approving legislation is fundamental to the UK’s constitution, and passing laws without executive approval upsets the UK’s constitutional order.

Guido can now reveal there is extensive precedent of Governments asking the Queen to not sign legislation they don’t approve. Anti-Brexit spokesman Tony Blair himself used this power on a number of occasions to “quell politically embarrassing backbench rebellions”. Perhaps most notably to block a bill by Tam Dalyell in 1999 that aimed to give MPs a vote on military action against Saddam Hussein.

Going further back, Labour PM Harold Wilson used the Queen’s veto to kill off two “politically embarrassing bills” about peerages and Zimbabwean independence, in 1964 and 1969 respectively

Alastair Campbell has been reacting furiously to Gove’s refusal to commit the government to obeying any law parliament passes; when asked about Blair using the same tactic, he conveniently failed to recall the case…

I see plenty of Remainiac sails, but, alas alack NO WIND

The spads have obviously done all their homework and got gold stars for all their 'sums'.(Unlike the abbaccus)

Sound good to me DMcG. As long as preventing a no deal doesn't include making a worse deal!

I think the only 'deal' option available is the withdrawal agreement unchanged, with something different in the political declaration. That is the position in my opinion whether it is Johnson or Corbyn negotiating. While it is definitely a great deal worse that the soft Brexit I thought might be negotiated (which would of course be in line with the referendum), it is still a lot better than no deal. And since the declaration is not legally binding, a new government could go in a different direction anyway.

"So what was OK in Tory ranks then isn't going to be OK now. Wow." Withdrawing the whip is bad enough but banning from standing as a candidate in future elections destroys any claim to democracy that the Tory Party have Basically it means that the Mps are selected by the Prime Minister on the basis that they support what he wants That is as 'indicated' a dictatorship as it gets The mask is now off - Britain is heading for dictatorship status Cummings will probably be given the job of creating an SS !! JIm Carroll

Although I played local league football until I was 30-ish, I’m not a great football fan nowadays. I’m more into cricket and Rugby (both the men’s game and Union!). But, if I had to declare allegiance to a club other than Leeds Utd., it would probably be Liverpool.

Well, BWM, I think Jurgen is far too inclusive for that. And never forget that Bill Shankly (aka God) was an ardent socialist of the finest kind, and 'twas he who set the Liverpool ethos for ever more!

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to refer to Fergie at Man U (or Manure as some Liverpool fans are apt to call them) as the Dominic Cummings of football. Fergie didn't exactly frogmarch his uppity types out of the club, but he was known to throw things around the dressing room in a rage, and he made some of the best footballers persona non grata. Ask Becks, he'd tell you! That's the Boris method, innit...

Sound good to me DMcG. As long as preventing a no deal doesn't include making a worse deal! I and many others have said from the start that this disaster is completely the fault of the Tories. They got us in it and they should shoulder the responsibility. The only possible benefit I see from brexit is the destruction of the Tory party. They have already tried to shift the blame elsewhere but, if Corbyn is considering what you suggest, the timing should be when they have dug themselves so far into the mire that they can never get out.

Of course getting a good deal with the EU or not leaving at all would be preferable but is that feasible at this stage? Unlike some Tories, who would prefer to see their own party in ruins to not leaving, I believe that those who really do value parliamentary democracy would be quite forgiving of anyone who could sort out this shambles to the benefit of the whole population.

I should have said that is my speech if we do not have a agreed GNU ready and waiting in the wings that we could deploy immediately. In that situation my speech would be different, but I don't think that is ready at the moment.

Amusing myself by writing a draft speech for Corbyn if Boris calls for a vote of no confidence. This is what I would say. Of course, he may take a different tack entirely.

Mr Speaker: Labour has been clear that it will do everything it can to prevent a no-deal. We have also been clear that we will call for a vote of no confidence at a time of our choosing.

The Prime Minister has been equally clear that he would pick the date of a general election after October 31st which would ensure we have left by that date. As Parliament would not be sitting, that would be a no-deal exit, because we would be unable to vote for any other deal. Because we are committed to preventing no-deal, we cannot agree to that. For that reason, we will call for a vote of no confidence at a time of our choosing, but we will not support one today.

Some will argue that by not declaring no confidence today we will make a no deal more likely. I would answer that any responsibility for a no deal lies with the Prime Minister - we will not absolve him of that. He has the authority to bring back a deal to this house and has declared many times he will do so. We give him that choice. The choice is also with him to recommend the House revokes Article 50: that option is always available to him to prevent a no deal if he wished to take it. We give him that choice. We have heard talk that he wants to run an election saying Parliament is preventing him from negotiating a deal: we choose not to prevent him negotiating.

Mr Speaker, I can confirm once again that Labour will call a Vote of No Confidence at a time of our choosing. Today is not that day.

Terrible things facts. By every metric remainers lost the referendum. It only needed a one vote majority for the valiant brexiteers to win. They gained in excess of a million. The only reason the rebels in Parliament are acting the way they are is because they know they have no mandate from the people. It is the people who have sovereignty and elect MPs to represent them. That these rebels do not go to the people to firmly establish their mandate is very telling. They know they will not only lose,but lose their cosy sinecures as well. That tells one all that is needed about the "calibre" of these destroyers of democracy. Both they and the partisan speaker are on the brink of replacement. Time to suspend him while those bullying allegations are investigated doncha think? There are many ways of skinning a cat.

A question for the screeching minority.

WHY are you scared to obtain a fresh mandate from the people by way of a no confidence vote and General Election? I will answer it for you. It is because you losers would resoundingly lose again and again ahd again.Remember Farage and his Brexit party cleaned up in the EU elections. He has had no chance to field his popular party in the UK yet, and you are scared of him!(Cue drivelling abuse)Go on make my day. PROVE ME WRONG!

A report summarising the findings of the government’s official “alternative arrangements” working groups concluded that there are issues with all the scenarios put forward to try to replace the backstop arrangement. There are also specific concerns over whether any technological solution could be delivered to monitor cross-border trade. Critics said the paper, seen by the Guardian, should “ring alarm bells” across government over how likely it is that alternative arrangements to the backstop will be found. The dossier marked “official-sensitive” prepared for the EU Exit Negotiations Board is dated 28 August. It details how the findings of all advisory groups informing the government on the Northern Irish border are being kept deliberately under wraps to try to avoid hampering Britain’s intended renegotiation of the backstop agreed to by Theresa May.

I don't think that will come as a surprise to anyone who bothered to read the 272 page report and subject it to any kind of critique.

I have said elsewhere - not necessarily in these threads - that *every* border by definition does two things

a) It permits something which meets certain rules to pass. b) It prevents things that don't meet those rules from passing.

This is basic stuff, surely. Yet the whole 272 page report concentrates of the first of these - trusted trader schemes, anyone - and virtually ignores the second. Indeed at one point it admits the second may get worse than it is now, but offers the opinion it won't.

Again basic stuff: opinions are not mechanisms.

In any case, the essence of the reasons why they think it won't rely on things that the US paper on thier trading objectives wants removed as part of any trade deal.

Nigel has said he has deliberately avoided this discussion - I think if I was in his position and defending the events he needs too defend,, I might have decided to do the same I see little point in antagonising him now he has returned - we need a far more intelligent input from Brexit supporters thna we have had so far, God knows Talking about other posters gets threads closed - back to our muttons

Haven't been out for the paper, are the tanks rolling up Whitehall yet !! Any minute now; Johnson's only got till tomorrow SPAD = 'Secretly Promoted and Authorised Doorkeeper' from his behaviour and that of those who allow him to act as the thug Cummings obviously is - Germany's 'New Order' was riddled with them Jim Carroll

Not only should everyone not speak to YKW, neither should they speak about him. Any reference to him can be construed by both YKW, and the powers that be, as ‘provocation’ and can be used to justify his school-playground behaviour.

Blank him completely. That is the only way to demonstrate who the real Problem Poster is - otherwise, everyone who participates becomes a ‘bastard’ in the eyes of ‘Them Upstairs’.

We've been trying hard to blank you-know-who, SPB, and it's working. Worth remembering that only a handful of people ever read his posts. And I for one am not one of them any more. Let's keep the thread going!

Ah, good to see you, Nigel. Not so good that you ignore the fact that, along with several other contributors with whom you disagree, I try to argue the substance of the issue. A hint, Nigel: you are quick to criticise, but you will be ultimately be judged by those who you choose NOT to criticise, and there's one egregious example here about whom you are oddly silent......

That's how it is round here. Raggy and I don't agree about our approach to poor Iains. Jim and I disagree about referendums, and I'm sure Jim won't mind if I tell you that he's even suggested that we start a "referendum" thread so that he and I can scrap. It might happen if I can muster the energy. BWM has told me to eff off on a number of occasions and pfr and I commonly adopt different and incompatible perspectives. But you, as a right-winger, attempt to single out us lefties, one at a time, for your nitpicking negative attacks. We call that tribalism, Nigel. I know that Liverpool FC is the greatest team on earth, always was, always will be, and that Man U stink. I'm a unashamed footie tribalist. But on the matter of brexit my only focus is on what's best for this country. I don't expect anyone to agree about my take. But I put my case, and have done over many posts. It takes effort. You should try that approach yourself some time. We've seen very little of it from you so far. The nitpicking thing with you can look like a joke. But it's your main modus operandi, unfortunately. Perhaps you use it as compensation for the fact that you can't actually debate. Now there's a challenge for you. Prove me wrong.

The most outrageous of the unelected rabble is Dominic Cummings - a tee-shirt wearing thug with the power to dismiss the staff of elected ministers Fuckibg outraueous

As a point of accuracy I need to point out the "unelected rabble" you refer to is the legally constituted government. A contradiction in terms, doncha think?

Dominic Cummings is a spad. That means he is an appointee, not elected.He is the 'mad eye Moody' of the Tories, an 'auror' teaching defense against the dark arts of the coup plotting rabble hell bent on defying the sovereignty of the people.

A very useful laddie to have onside judging by the resultant squealing coming from the losers.

(When the swearing and insults start you know they have lost the argument and incoherent rage takes over.) Tickety tock. time and tide waits for no man!

Now! What about that no confidence vote? Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Verily I say to you, a true popcorn moment.

If you want to talk about unelected rabble (I'd rather not), well there's our unelected prime minister in charge of a minority government (unelected by the electorate) which is being run behind the scenes by an unelected bully of a special adviser in Number Ten. This unelected bunch are so arrogant that they believe they have some sort of "mandate." Let's hope they get put right this week.